1 / 10

Lawrence University and the Seeley G. Mudd Library

Lawrence University and the Seeley G. Mudd Library. Private undergraduate college of the liberal arts and sciences with a conservatory of music 1450 students, 98% live on campus 170 FTE faculty, 97% with PhD or terminal degree Calendar of three 10-week terms, no summer session

tien
Télécharger la présentation

Lawrence University and the Seeley G. Mudd Library

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lawrence University and the Seeley G. Mudd Library • Private undergraduate college of the liberal arts and sciences with a conservatory of music • 1450 students, 98% live on campus • 170 FTE faculty, 97% with PhD or terminal degree • Calendar of three 10-week terms, no summer session • Library staff: 15.5 FTE (8 MLS, 9 other); approximately 50 student employees • Collections: • 400,000 book volumes • 1,800 periodical subscriptions • 20,000 audio-visual items • 14,000 musical scores

  2. In the Beginning was the Stroke • And the stroke was good . . . • Quick! • Cheap! • But limited • Inconsistent • Didn’t reflect effort • Lots of time required to tabulate • Didn’t tell us anything about the questions

  3. It’s not what you know . . . • November 2006: we were contacted by Bella Gerlich, friend and former colleague of our Music Librarian, Antoinette Powell, about being a part of the READ study • This was a timely coincidence • Lawrence’s upcoming NCA visit • Reference zeitgeist

  4. First step: calibrating the scale • Customized the questions • Each librarian answered the questions, recording sources and process used and amount of time spent, then assigned a rating from the READ scale • Librarians met and discussed our answers, our process, and our ratings • Also proved to be a very useful process in terms of staff development

  5. The study: Feb. 2 - 24, 2007 • Used a paper form (just like our old form, only bigger) • Placed a paper copy of the scale at the reference desk on the same clipboard we used for the tally sheets • Counted number of digits as though they were strokes to fit into our previous recording scheme

  6. Immediately after the study • We found that the READ scale was easy enough to adopt that we just continued to use it for the rest of the term, then the rest of the year • Use of the scale helped us value, as well as evaluate, our work at the reference desk. We found we were answering many more complex questions than we assumed.

  7. Follow-up: our adaptations • Fall 2007: started using an Excel spreadsheet saved on shared file space. File names were included on our reference Moodle space • Included room to record the content of the questions • Spring 2008: included formulas in the spreadsheet to total as we go

  8. Ongoing challenges • “Ratings drift:” we still seem to underrate our questions • One response: include a copy of the scale as a tab in the spreadsheet • Slight decline in total number of questions • Slightly fewer questions recorded with the READ scale, probably because we were double-counting for complicated questions in the tickmark method • May also be due to increase in the number of reference appointments • Acceptance

  9. Future use of the READ scale • Will look to see if the level of questions fluctuates from term to term or over the course of a year • May use to determine staffing • Helps provide evidence of reference as teaching • Advocacy with faculty and administration

More Related